| From: | Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:01:27 -0600 |
| Subject: | Re: Epistemological Revolution (Chris et Al) |
Dear John and Others
Antonio has again muddied the waters so discussion gets sidetracked and people leave the lists and resign.
I see he has again copied to WDDM which is an administrative list. I will send there with this reply but it is not for this type discussion. The CICDD list is open so unless members police themselves about ethics, Antonio can rave on in that list.
We do not need Antonio "acronym's" with his own perverse meanings which are not universally known. People have enough problem with language without adding new unknowns. I just went through eight emails to find out what NMT meant, only to find that NMT is one of Antonio's perverse acronyms.
I must again point out why WDDM has not until now amounted to a pinch of s---and. WDDM could not make decisions. To make a decision democratically, we must know what people want. To do this they are often polled, where they vote i.e.: election. We needed to decide on WDDM policy, vote in a secretary etc. Antonio decided that our WDDM vote would somehow affect the world, so we were not allowed to vote to establish policy or even establish election rules for the WDDM organization.
Now he is still on the same bandwagon, trying to stop WDDM again. I refer to the following email. Of course all of Antonio's writings have the same fascist diatribe. Antonio continues to seek a "BOSS" to run the show instead of allowing the people (members) to establish their organization. This is Antonio's pure fascist organizing and Antonio should join fascist organizations where his ideas would be welcomed.
So please do not let Antonio discourage you or spend time arguing with him. He is unfortunately unable to understand "good sense" or "common sense".
Regards, Bruce
|
From:
|
Reply-To:
To:
Cc:
Date: Dec 1, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Epistemological Revolution (Chris et Al)
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Trash this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
At 23:48 -0500 30-11-2005, John Baker wrote:
> If 50%+ abstain from voting is the process automatically
> considered 'non-democratic'? Likewise, is the system
> non-democratic if 100% do turn out and a dictator is
> delegated with absolute power? In both instances I
> would say the results are democratic. They may not be to
> everyone's liking but that is not the point of democracy.
John, and all
this was the core point of a long and harsh discussion
I held against Bruce and others here in the past. They
wanted to change some WDDM rules by voting, and
claimed the decision would have been a democratic one
because voted by the majority of the WDDM members -
a dozen at that time. I retained that the decision was
undemocratic because it had to deal with a Worldwide
Democracy and a dozen only of people were too few
in order to decide for the remaining Worldwide populace.
Now; as in your above examples: I agree with you, that
in both instances the results are democratic. But those
would be the results of a poor democracy. I guess: is it
that, the Democracy we are looking at?
> I believe trying to insure a suitable NMT must be in
> place before advocating DD displays a distrust of
> DD in general and probably does not belong on a DD
> advocacy group.
Again, I agree with you, that getting the people into being
ruled by a dictator having been democratically elected by
the people as their Representative, would be a democratic
results. But this would be the very results of a "Ruling by
Representatives" Democracy (RD). Direct Democracy
(DD) is another kettle of fish, and I'm looking forwards to
seeing the people changing their RD Manner of Thinking
into a New Manner of Thinking, namely, a DD NMT.
Don't you?
Regards, antonio
Antonio,
Again, I agree with you, that getting the people into being
ruled by a dictator having been democratically elected by
the people as their Representative, would be a democratic
results. But this would be the very results of a "Ruling by
Representatives" Democracy (RD). Direct Democracy
(DD) is another kettle of fish, and I'm looking forwards to
seeing the people changing their RD Manner of Thinking
into a New Manner of Thinking, namely, a DD NMT.
this was the core point of a long and harsh discussion
I held against Bruce and others here in the past. They
wanted to change some WDDM rules by voting, and
claimed the decision would have been a democratic one
because voted by the majority of the WDDM members -
a dozen at that time. I retained that the decision was
undemocratic because it had to deal with a Worldwide
Democracy and a dozen only of people were too few
in order to decide for the remaining Worldwide populace.
Yes but..
I thought this was a DD advocacy forum. Discussing NMT as a prerequisite for DD seems off-topic to me. Personally, I believe the majority can be trusted more than a minority. This means I am more afraid of anything less than a democractic decision.
I do not know what the best decision is for the whole, therefore I ask each individual for their honest opinion. The only way to do that is via a democratic vote. Therefore, I support DD, unequivacably. I ave no doubt that DD is better for everyone as a whole for this reason and therefore I am not concerned about NMT.
Once a global DD constitution is established I believe NMT will take care of itself.
Respectfully,JB